more in anger than in sorrow - more AusBC censorship, less comprehension

Beethoven may have suffered, however briefly, from 'Die wut über den verlorenen groschen.'

Some people, so it is said, cry over spilt milk.

But there's very little point in getting one's nickers in a twist, over AusBC censorship, for here we 'borrow' from detested Ameri-speak (spit!): "Don't get angry, get even."

One way to document the AusBC crimes against freedom of speech & therefore against democracy itself, is to list 'in here' the items they have censored:

1) posted ~09Jan'11,09:52pm;

{Say one thing, do another.

"You can say what you like" - but nothing helps, if you don't listen.

Claiming 'legality' whilst dismissing at least all of UNGA181, 194 & 273, and UNSCR242 leads to contradiction.

"Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories" does not reconcile well with "recognised as the lawful occupier," as "illegal settlements" attest.

See discussion on conceding; you did not dispute 'The law is an ass' nor 'Only *just* law can earn respect.'

Israel has ignored IntLaw from the beginning (i.e. Deir Yassin).

Israel's 'friend' vetoes anything critical.

Which means that IntLaw simultaneously means *all* to you/Israel - or *nothing* = contradiction.

It's the same as saying IF 'p' AND '~p' THEN no conclusion is possible.

This is not a Darlinghurst courtroom; arguing the 'legality' (and/or illegitimacy) means only to continue the status quo at best, leading to *more* opprobrium for one side, ever *less* justice for others.

The question is not of fiddling the legal system (un-levelling the 'playing field'), *clearly* what's been happening, but of seeking truth and justice.

The only 'win' possible is a win-win; *not* that the biggest/most guns get the spoil (aka murdering-burglary/home-invasion), but that *nobody* gets ripped-off.

«Primum non nocere.»}



2) 2nd (paraphrased) try, ~10Jan'11,06:45am;

{«qui tacet consentire videtur»

Recall "...only assume you concede them."

Not me; temporary silence may occur due to extraneous events.

Apropos, no-one disputed 'the law is an ass' nor 'only *just* law can earn respect.'

Claiming 'legality' whilst dismissing at least all of UNGA181, 194 & 273, and UNSCR242 leads to contradiction.

"Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories" does not reconcile well with "recognised as the lawful occupier," as illegal settlements attest.

Israel has ignored IntLaw from the beginning (i.e. Deir Yassin).

Israel's 'friend' vetoes anything UNSCR/critical.

Which means that IntLaw simultaneously means *all* to you/Israel - or *nothing* = contradiction.

It's the same as saying IF 'p' AND '~p' THEN no conclusion is possible.

This is not a Darlinghurst courtroom; arguing legality and/or illegitimacy means only to continue the appalling status quo, leading to *increasing* pariah-status and opprobrium for one side, ever *less* justice for hapless victims.

The question is not of fiddling the legal system (un-levelling the 'playing field'), but of genuinely seeking truth and justice.

The only *just* win is a mutual win; *not* when the biggest/most guns get the spoil (aka murdering-burglary/home-invasion), but when *nobody* gets ripped-off or killed.

«Arma potentius aequum»}


Comment: A lot of my inputs are duplications (in new permutations) of things I've written and had published before; AFAIK there's nothing particularly new or outrageous in the above inputs.


Sooo, two questions:

a) Who gives the AusBC the right to censor *at all*, then

b) What can they possibly object to, in my facts and fact-based opinions?

Suggested A to the latter: they are *part of the problem*. See? Nothing much new here; move along!